Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hard documentary evidence

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE Babajobu 18:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hard documentary evidence

dicdef Melaen 00:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Nothing useful in this plain dicdef - Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 00:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom; almost useless even as a dictdef. OhnoitsJamie^Talk 00:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per Phaedriel. Ruby 01:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Phaedriel. --Terence Ong 05:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Worthless. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 05:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Lockley 05:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the proof that stuff went down. Grandmasterka 08:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Documentary evidence. just maybe someone would type that in and redirects are cheap -- Astrokey44|talk 14:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Astrokey. --대조 | Talk 17:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect looks good. Liamdaly620 17:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - no good. Latinus 18:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Jim62sch 20:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The Deviant 21:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as redirect seems pointless Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Documentary evidence. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-24 05:22Z

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.